I haven't read anything about him being a "gun nut." I'm curious what that portion of your statement stems from.Trayvon Martin was killed and his racist gun-nut vigilante murderer is still free
I haven't read anything about him being a "gun nut." I'm curious what that portion of your statement stems from.Trayvon Martin was killed and his racist gun-nut vigilante murderer is still free
He owned one.I haven't read anything about him being a "gun nut." I'm curious what that portion of your statement stems from.
There's more to the story than the first few paragraphs.hahahah that fucking letter "look at all these black friends he has!!! he's latino, can't be racist!!!"
Newsflash: Racist doesn't mean white. People of color can be incredibly racist!!!!!
ALSO last time I checked being racist isn't a crime (unfortunately), even if he's not racist, he still fucking murdered a kid!!!!
andIt was dark, and the boy did not see how the fight started, in fact, he only saw one person, a man in a red shirt — Zimmerman — who was on the ground.
Pretty much it just shows that there's more to this story than the general knowledge of "guy stalks boy, guy shoots boy" that's being reported everywhere. I still think the guy at least needs to get arrested (I mean, he was following the unarmed kid while carrying a gun [well, the letter denies that he followed anyone, but whatever], then shot the kid to death,) but the actual circumstances of the shooting seem a little less cut-and-dry.Zimmerman told police he acted in self-defense. Police found blood on his face and the back of his head as well as grass on the back of his shirt
Not only that, but the victim clearly brought it upon himself.What worries me is this, though... the guy may very well have an adequate enough legal excuse to not be arrested, no matter how BS his case may be, so even the federal investigation might not end in his arrest. And if that happens... well, things might end badly.
Not only that, but the victim clearly brought it upon himself.
I'll just leave this here...I am a radical on gun ownership, I think it's kind of crazy to carry a gun on your person in public (obviously, cops nonwithstanding)
I'm gonna go ahead and guess that the answer to your question is, "yes."I wonder how many police procedural shows will have an episode based on this for the opening of the fall season...
Ah the classic a implies b, therefore b must imply a. This case was to prevent frivolous lawsuits, not to say that police won't protect you.
Well, to turn this around on you, would you say that a woman in a situation such as the one described in the story shouldn't be allowed to protect herself or her children with a gun?Yeah that'll work out just fine....
I was looking for a Number between 2 and 20...I'm gonna go ahead and guess that the answer to your question is, "yes."
Well, the CSI people technically aren't police. So... there's that?I was looking for a Number between 2 and 20...
Is there any other form of Drama on American TV?
That's my stock answer for "all of them."I was looking for a Number between 2 and 20...
Is there any other form of Drama on American TV?
They're the Las Vegas Equivalent of Judge Dredd.Well, the CSI people technically aren't police. So... there's that?
Though they also take the time after each case to make sure the suspect feels adequately bad about themselves, moving their jurisdiction to the emotional realm as well.They're the Las Vegas Equivalent of Judge Dredd.
It appeals to the visceral need humans have for making people not only meet justice, but know they were wrongity wrong wrong wrong.Though they also take the time after each case to make sure the suspect feels adequately bad about themselves, moving their jurisdiction to the emotional realm as well.
Wrong!It appeals to the visceral need humans have for making people not only meet justice, but know they were wrongity wrong wrong wrong.
Much like internet arguments...
Oooh burn. I totally got what I deserved and you can tell by my expression as I do the perp walk.Wrong!
I'd say the chance of the "protection" working out for her is less likely then a story of child accidentally shoots self, sibling, dog etc with mothers gun.Well, to turn this around on you, would you say that a woman in a situation such as the one described in the story shouldn't be allowed to protect herself or her children with a gun?
So, is that a "no?"I'd say the chance of the "protection" working out for her is less likely then a story of child accidentally shoots self, sibling, dog etc with mothers gun.